Sunday, December 17, 2017

The following illustrates just how
mad, how insane our “involvement” in Vietnam was: First, the government of
Vietnam, that is, Diem, and the U.S. destroyed the village life that most
Vietnamese in southern Vietnam knew and had known for hundreds of years, by barring the French from executing the laws and banishing the Chinese
merchants who provided the financial basis of village life. And then, when “the
stronger men of the village banded together to get water, salt, and the other
necessities of life by the oldest means known to man: banditry,” which was "not
political or ideological” but was “a last resort to obtain simple and
elementary needs,” the following happened: “Back in Saigon, the Diem government
and its American adviserswere totally
unaware of the true causes of this unrest, but they were ready with their Pavlovian
interpretation.. It was, they said, the result of ‘Communist subversion
and insurgency.’” [JFK, the CIA, Vietnam,
and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, L. Fletcher Prouty, 92-93]

And so, after creating unrest, the
Diem government and its American advisers reacted to it as if it were communist
inspired, thereby creating the basis for US intervention in Vietnam and the deaths
of millions of Vietnamese and 58,000 plus American troopers before the madness
was ended in 1975. Prouty argues that this is the result of a grand conspiracy
that wants endless war because such wars are profitable. Somehow, that speculation
seems to me a more comforting explanation than that this state of affairs was
the result of good, old fashioned hubris, of the utter ignorance and inhumanity
of America’s “best and the brightest.” For it is the latter explanation that
makes me want to take the flag “a grateful nation” presented to my parents at
my brother Charlie’s funeral and burn it.

For several
reasons, few of them worthwhile, and for some time I have been wondering about
I what call “the policy-making paradigm of politics” as a particular and
peculiar kind of politics – in a manner of speaking. I also call it “the
problem-solving paradigm of politics.”

Having
recently read a very good book by John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam: Deception,
Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power,” I have found some illumination on
the workings of such a paradigm. Toward the end of his book, Newman points out
the similarities – as well as the differences – between JFK and LBJ as follows:
“The key to understanding how this campaign problem differed for these two men
is this: Kennedy had to disguise a withdrawal; Johnson had to disguise
intervention.” [442] That is, both Kennedy and Johnson engaged in deception,
Kennedy to keep combat troops out of
Vietnam while Johnson did so to get combat troops into Vietnam.

And they
both did it for the same reason. Kennedy disguised withdrawal because he was
fearful that if he went public with his policy, he would lose the election of
1964, being defeated as an “appeaser” of communism, as the one who “lost”
Vietnam. Johnson shared the same fears. “I am not going to lose Vietnam. I am
not going to be the Presidentwho saw
Southeast Asia go the way that China went.” [442] But Johnson didn’t make these
views public during the ’64 campaign because he, like JFK, was fearful if he
did so he would lose the election. So, neither man went public with his views,
Kennedy disguising his withdrawal and Johnson disguising his intervention.
Neither man was willing to give the American people the choice to withdraw or
intervene. And both men were willing to and did engage in deception and
intrigue in order to have their way.

It is
important to see that this behavior is part and parcel of a policy-making or
problem-solving politics. In such a politics, Vietnam was a “problem” needing a
“solution” and our politicians, our officials were expected to have such a
solution, which then they would “sell” to the American people. The solution
thus takes precedence over “the consent of the governed” and if that consent is
not forthcoming, then politicians should work around, should manipulate, should
even deceive the people to implement the solution. A policy-making or
problem-solving politics is a way of short-circuiting popular rule or “people
power.” The politicians choose both the problems and the solutions, not the
people.

Hence, the
chant, common during the war, “One, two, three, four, we don’t want your bloody
war!” was “radical” in that it rejected the policy-making paradigm. It meant,
among other things, that Vietnam was not a problem, not our problem, and so we
Americans had no business being there. It is only a short step from this to the
idea that our intervention in Vietnam was indefensible, even immoral. A
policy-making paradigm cannot deal with such an argument and, hence, has to
marginalize such assertions of the popular will as thoughtless, as ignorant, as
illegitimate, or as simply unworthy.

But
politics or self-government would seem to require, at the very least, that the
people be given choices, here the choice to decide whether to withdraw or
intervene in Vietnam. Neither Kennedy nor Johnson was willing to do this,
abrogating to themselves the power, even the
right to make that most basic choice about a war in Vietnam for the people.
Once that step is taken, once that right is claimed, then “deception, intrigue,
and the struggle for power” will follow, follow as night follows day, follow as
darkness follows light. And, for sure, there will be no “light at the end of
the tunnel.”

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

The above
is a link to a review by Diane Ravitch, of the two books, those being Democracy
in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America,
and The One Percent Solution: How
Corporations are Remaking America One State At A Time.

I am
posting this for those who think the way to oppose
Trump is labeling his supporters 'racist,' or 'moronic.' Trump and company are
so far beyond such tactics that such name-calling merely facilitates those who
have undermined our republic. Trump et. al. have an agenda, one that has the
support of many of the very wealthy and is disguised as "libertarian"
or "freedom loving." To defeat these people, you need an alternative
agenda, and calling Trump "Orange 45" or lambasting his tweets or his
followers won't do it. And, sad to say, the Democrats don't have such an
alternative agenda, which is why they dream the impossible dream of
impeachment.

Here is an example of an alternative agenda from Elizabeth Warren, but I bet you won't hear many Democrats pushing such an agenda.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

I have just published a book on the 1992 presidential election, entitled "1992: A Political Fantasy." It is a "fantasy" of how and why George H. W. Bush deliberately lost that election to Bill Clinton. It is listed on Amazon, the author being me, P. Schultz, and the title as given above. It is available in paperback for $12.99 and on Kindle for $4.99. At those prices, you can't go wrong.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Below you
will find a link to an article published in the Washington Post on why “Trump
conservatives” are dissatisfied, allegedly, with our colleges and universities.
I posted this link on Facebook with the comment:

“So glad I quit "higher
education" when I did. Think about it: Now someone who is a "trained
marksman" and can shoot the head off a rattlesnake is considered worth
listening to on how to politicize even further than they already are politicized
our colleges and universities. And trust me: There is nothing radical or even
much that is unconventional going on in those institutions. Most professors
seek above all else tenure and success and are as a result, as the smartest
students know, just boring mouthpieces who never stray too far from
"conventional wisdom." Besides, the BOBs, the Basic Old Bureaucrats,
have the real power and these guys are as asinine - read "mainstream' - as
any Trumpian conservative or Obama liberal would wish them to be.”

My comment
was met with this response from one of my Facebook friends, who is by the way
not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form:

RS: “Not sure I
agree. Much movement is occurring in non traditional education. I had a long
discussion with our kids who are both in education and way smarter than I am
and they explained about so many innovations in the pipeline. So, take heart, Pete Schultz,
the world of education is not all gloom and doom.”

And this comment elicited the
following from yours truly:

“But, of course, it
is not "all gloom and doom" in education, or anywhere else, even in
the Trump administration. This is the kind of assertion that is impossible and
useless to argue with because it is so, well, meaningless or even inane. And I
rest my case if your "kids" are defending "innovations in the
pipeline." This is BOB, Basic Old Bureaucrat talk, which is generally
meaningless, inane lingo having nothing to do with "education." It
helps explain how we as a people have come to think that standardized testing
is anything other than the means of destroying genuine education and producing
more "bricks in the wall" who can work for corporations without
realizing how meaningless their lives actually are. And this stuff is dressed
up as "No Child Left Behind" ala' Bush, Jr. or "Race to the
Top," ala' Obama. But then, again, you can put a dress and earrings on a
pig but it is still a pig. Again, so glad I quit.”

The exchange, illustrates among
other things, why people like Trump are successful. Here is someone who, to be
direct, knows little or nothing about “the education world” and the battles
being fought there but, for the sake of “innovations in the pipe line,” ends up
allying himself with those like the green beret marksman who was used as the
basis of the Post article and “analysis.” Oh yes!

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

“Sometimes the light's all shining on me. Other times I can
barely see. Lately it’s occurred to me: What a long strange trip it’s
been.”The Grateful Dead

I have been
reading this book, The Embers of War,
about Vietnam in the 1940’s and 1950’s, when the US was just getting involved
there, as we say. And all of a sudden I was “blinded by the light.” For the US,
it was never really about Vietnam. Rather, it was about the United States and
preserving the status quo here, preserving the regime that was being
established, that had been established at least since the end of World War II.

How can you
preserve a political order best? It’s rather simple. By dying for it and/or
killing for it. And that’s what Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon
used Vietnam for, for dying and killing American soldiers – and others – in
order to fortify, to preserve, and even to extend the national security state
that had been created after World War II.

That’s why
we never seem to learn from “our mistakes” in Vietnam: Because our actions weren't mistakes and the same strategy is being used today, dying and killing in order
to perpetuate our flawed, our unrepresentative, our oligarchic political order."Winning" in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere isn't important. What's important is the dying and the killing because that blood offering is that which renders our establishment secure.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Below is a
link to an article from the NY Times, entitled “McConnell Gambled on Health
Care and the Alabama Senate Race. He Lost.” This article is interesting because
it illustrates the character of American politics quite well and how it differs
from what conventional wisdom tells about our politics.

According
to the conventional wisdom, our political parties are conduits through which
the popular will is translated into legislation and policies, making our
officials “representatives” people of “good will,” who respond to the popular
will as it manifests itself in polls and elections. In brief, our political
parties are the tools of democracy, headed by well-intentioned politicians
seeking to advance the common good.

Contrarily,
however, what this article illustrates is that our political parties are
controlled by “bosses,” here personified by Mitch McConnell for the
Republicans, who seek to short circuit the popular will whenever that is
necessary to preserve the status quo and the bosses’ power and status. One
quote captures this very well: ““I think people here are frustrated,
and they have bought into this narrative that Mitch McConnell is to blame, that
he’s incompetent, that he’s part of the establishment, that he’s controlled by
special interests and synonymous with the status quo.”

This
is a fairly accurate assessment of what is going on – although I would say that
McConnell is not incompetent and that he is not controlled by the special
interests – which is why the “frustrated people” are buying “into this
narrative.” After all, “the narrative” is accurate! They, the frustrated, are
beginning to see that their “representatives” in D.C. are not so much
interested in representing them as controlling them in order to preserve the
status quo. They are even beginning to suspect that the mainstream Republicans
never intended to repeal and replace the ACA, insofar as they had seven years
to come up with a replacement and did not do it. That is, they are catching on that
those who claim to represent them and seek to turn their wants into legislation
and other policies are more interested in preserving the status quo, interested
in controlling them and not in representing them.

The
thing is: Our political parties and its leaders, its bosses, are not in the
game of embracing democracy but, rather, are in the game of stifling democracy
or rule by the people. This is, as the election in Alabama illustrated, as true
of Donald Trump as it is of Mitch McConnell. It is also as true of Democratic
Party as it is of the Republican Party. What are called “special interests”
take part in this project but they are not playing the lead roles therein. It
is within this project of preserving the status quo that these groups seek to
promote their interests.

People
are frustrated across the political spectrum, as evidenced by the relative success
of Bernie Sanders’ challenge to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination
for president last year. And their frustration stems from two facts, not taken into
account by our conventional wisdom regarding our politics: (1) Our politicians
are not, for the most part, people of “good will” who are “well intentioned,”
trying to serve the people’s interests and desires. And (2) our political
parties are not devoted to making democracy work but are, rather, devoted to
ensuring that democracy doesn’t work so their bosses can preserve their power
and status.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

The answer
to this question is pretty simple: Because the established political order is
so fragile. To explain.

Dissatisfaction
– to say the least – abounds in the U.S. Large majorities of people tell
pollsters that they no longer trust “their” government. These majorities are so
large, the dissatisfaction so intense, that the legitimacy of the established
political order – namely, that represented by Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton,
George Bush, and Barack Obama and which may be called our national security
state – is endangered. It might even, as did the Soviet Union some thirty years
ago, topple over and disappear.

Something
needed to be done and, low and behold, “the Donald,” who is promising to “make
America great again,” appears. Why is this, why is he appealing? Well, first,
this is what most Americans wish for, a restoration of “greatness.” There are
few, very few Americans either among the liberals or the conservatives, who question
whether greatness is desirable. They don’t question it because for them it
means, allegedly, more security and more prosperity. They don’t realize, for
example, that it was the pursuit of a restored greatness after World War II
that led the French to defeat in Vietnam and Algeria. For these Americans,
greatness is the thing, even the one thing that a nation should
pursue. And they certainly don’t consider that our dissatisfaction stems from
this pursuit.

And,
second, one way or another, Trump will restore our greatness. He is doing it
rhetorically ala’ his bombastic speech at the UN the other day, as well as by
his blatant nationalism that makes it seem that the US need not be fearful and
should act as it wants to act. This is why Trump’s bombast, despite its
shrillness, resonates with so many – because it is rhetoric of the strong, of
the powerful, announcing that “Yes, the US is back! And we will take names and
kick ass!”

Another way
Trump’s rhetoric restores America’s greatness is by reinforcing the myth, the
story that the US became great by wielding its power freely, by asking quarter
of no other nations, by taking what we wanted, the best part of Mexico, the
Northwest territories, Hawai’i, the Philippines, the Panama Canal, Alaska, as
well as markets throughout the Far East and even Europe, even while waging and
winning not one but two “world wars” almost single-handedly. That is, for all of his
alleged and self-proclaimed radicalness, Trump’s appeal rests on an
overwhelmingly conventional and unexceptional view of American history. So, while he claims
he wants to “drain the swamp” that is D.C., he actually thinks that that “swamp”
was once the home of “super heroes.” Trump is so conventional that his thought relies
on a comic book version of American history. Hence, the popularity of what
seems at first glance to be his “outlandishness.”

Thus, Trump’s
bombast works because there is very little in it that is radical. Despite being
shrill, being bombastic and seeming to be unconventional, Trump is merely the
latest version of Ronald Reagan, who took us driving on coastal highways while
it was morning once again in America. Such “greatness” asserted is, as Reagan
promised, greatness assured. And in this way, just as with Reagan, Trump’s alleged
“restoration” of America’s greatness will be indistinguishable from reinforcing
the status quo.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Recently,
it dawned on me that our nation, which some like to call “great” or even “the
greatest” has a pretty sorry record over the past 50 or 60 years. For example,
we lost the war on drugs, we lost the war on poverty, and we even lost the war
on crime. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

We also
lost the Vietnam War, we lost the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, but we
did win the war in Granada – wow!- and the war in Panama – another wow! We are still
fighting in Afghanistan after 16 years! We are still fighting in Iraq for
almost the same amount of time! We are still fighting in Syria. Korea is still
divided and that war hasn’t been officially ended yet. And now we are being
forced to threaten to annihilate North Korea. Apparently, we don’t have a lot
of options there. Not such a good record, is it?

The Kennedy
brothers, after failing to successfully invade Cuba and overthrow the Castro
brothers, tried to assassinate them but, wait for it, failed. And some argue
that after several failed attempts, Castro turned the tables on the Kennedys
and killed JFK. The US successfully overthrew the “socialist” government in
Iran, or so it seemed until the Islamic religious overthrew the Shah and still
control Iran today. The US successfully overthrew governments in Guatemala and
Chile, but the results were anything but honorable. And the US failed to
overthrow the government in Nicaragua. Again, not such a good record.

I mean even
some of the events that seemed to be achievements turned out to be less
successful than they were thought to be. For example, it was after the passage
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – now pretty
much defanged – that race riots broke out throughout the United States and
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were assassinated. And also after these
laws were passed, the mass incarceration of blacks began, fed by the likes of
President Nixon and Bill Clinton. And now we apparently need to be reminded
that “Black Lives Matter.”

Moreover,
during the Clinton years, Tim McVeigh and friends blew up the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City, while the ATF “successfully” dealt with the wackos
in Waco, if you can call an action that resulted in the fiery deaths of almost two
dozen children “successful.” At the same time, hundreds of militia groups were
forming throughout the nation, which again seems like a sign that things were
not going well.

Moreover,
consider the fate of our presidents since Eisenhower. Kennedy was assassinated,
LBJ was run out of office by protests over the war in Vietnam, Nixon was forced
to resign from the presidency because of Watergate, Ford attacked to free
hostages who were already free, Carter was run out of the presidency largely
because the Iranians seized our embassy in Tehran and held our diplomats
hostages for quite some time, Reagan was on the verge of impeachment because of
the Iran-Contra scandal when he sold arms for hostages while resupplying the
Contras with the profits from the sales, while the Contras used US planes to
transport drugs into the US to help fund their war in Nicaragua, Papa Bush
couldn’t or didn’t want to win re-election, Clinton was impeached and finished
up a rather pathetic figure,Bush Jr.
started a war in Iraq he couldn’t finish and which was based on lies or
“misinformation,” while the economy collapsed in 2008, and Obama couldn’t
finish Bush’s war either, couldn’t get a decent health insurance plan passed,
and only re-election because the Republicans put up a candidate who couldn’t
arouse even his own party to support him.

This is not
the stuff of legends, or at least it doesn’t seem so to me. So why do we call
ourselves “great” or “the greatest?” It is, based on the evidence, hard to
understand.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Donald
Trump wants, as did Ronald Reagan and others before him, “to make America great
again.” And in all the critiques of Trump and his behavior, much of which is
justified, his endorsement of greatness has not been challenged. And perhaps
that is because most Americans accept greatness as an uncontroversial political
goal, if not as the most important political goal.

This seems
to me questionable, at best. Recently, I have been reading a book, Embers of War, about the fall of the
French empire in what they called “Indochina,” embracing Vietnam, Cambodia, and
Laos. The book has illuminated for me that while Ho Chi Minh was prepared to
negotiate a peace with the French that would eventually lead to Vietnamese independence,
the French were committed to restoring their rule over Indochina and, hence,
unwilling to engage in serious negotiations with Ho. Why not? Because the kind
of agreement Ho wanted would have been inconsistent with maintaining the French
empire and, therewith, inconsistent with maintaining French greatness. For the
French, to be great required that it reclaim its empire and that meant
defeating and subjugating Vietnamese nationalism, as well as denying the
Vietnamese their independence.

What’s the
point? Just that the pursuit of greatness has consequences and not all of those
consequences are uncontroversial, ala’ French efforts to subjugate – they would
say “civilize” – the Vietnamese people, even though this would mean necessarily
engaging in a long term, if not constant war. So the questions should be asked:
Just what is required to restore American greatness? What would be the results
of such a restoration domestically? Does the restoration require, as it did for
the French, long or even constant wars, as seems to be the case in Afghanistan
and the Middle East?

Interestingly,
when our constitution was being debated, Patrick Henry raised just these kinds
of questions. To wit: “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased,
nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties
can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.
Shall we indulge the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a
splendid Government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can
make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in
attaining such a Government – for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this
Consolidated Government, it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some
way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a
navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the
language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object.”

So, as was
the case in 1788, so too today it is the pursuit of greatness that needs to be
talked about. What does it mean for how we Americans view ourselves and how we
Americans will be, will act in the world? In pursuing this conversation, we
might find that there is more that is defective about Trump than his often
boorish behavior. And we might even learn some things about politics.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

There is a
link below to an article on Politico, entitled “Republican Healthcare Monstrous
Healthcare Fail Might Just Have Saved the Party,” which strikes me as
interesting for the following reason: If what the Republicans in Congress just
did or didn’t do will help “save the Party,” why does Matt Latimer call it a
“failure?” Does Latimer mean to say that if the Republicans in Congress had
acted in another way, thereby condemning their party, this would have
constituted“success?”

The issue
here is an important one insofar as Latimer looks at politics in terms of
policy-making. As a result, when politicians fail to make policy or make bad
policy, they have failed.

On the
other hand, Latimer cannot help noticing that the Republicans “failure” to
repeal and replace “Obamacare” has benefits for the party, that is, “saves” it.
Sometimes, even quite often I will say, the failure to make policy or making
bad policy helps or benefits politicians in the sense of preserving their power
as well as maintaining the status quo.

Richard
Nixon, for example, when he was trying to extend the Vietnam War so he could
“settle” it just before the 1972 presidential election, invited Congress to
vote against the war, which they did. Although this seemed like a “failure” or
“loss” for Nixon, it was not because it allowed Nixon to later blame Congress
for “losing” that war, a war that Nixon knew was lost from the time he was
elected in 1968, if not before. So, by “failing” to stop Congress from voting
against the war, Nixon strengthened himself, making himself look like a
president who would do anything to gain “a peace with honor,” even though he
got neither peace nor honor when he “settled” the war.

Ever wonder
about the durability of what is called “supply side economics,” that is, why
this brand of “economics” sticks around despite its obvious failure to balance
the budget and erase deficits while boosting the economy? As policy, supply
side economics is clearly a “failure.” But as a way to keep conservatives and
other “neoliberals” in power, it is anything but a failure as it allows them to
maintain their power by maintaining the status quo. Any alternative is said to
be “socialism” and, hence, to be unacceptable. The fact that such economics is,
as George H.W. Bush said in 1980, “voodoo economics” is meaningless, just as it
was meaningless that Nixon’s “peace with honor” was neither.

What
politicians – and a few others – know is that politics revolves around not only
staying in power but in maintaining that arrangement of power that legitimates
and preserves their power, that is, the status quo. Policy making, whether
successful or not, is subordinated to this agenda. Nixon could “lose” – no, he
knew we would lose – the war in Vietnam provided he did it in a way that
preserved his power and the national security state that allowed him to rise to
the presidency. Any policy whether successful or not, such as “Vietnamization,”
that advanced this agenda he would and did support.In this way, Nixon helped to defeat those who
were proposing an alternative kind of politics, that is, an alternative to the
embedded “realistic power politics” that existed then and still exists today.

Similarly,
if it takes the failures of supply side economics or neoliberalism or
neo-conservatism to solidify the status quo, than those invested in that status
quo will embrace those failures, while pretending of course they were powerless
to prevent them or that their success was undermined by “socialists” like
Bernie Sanders or other “radicals.” As was noticed a very long time ago, there
are different and contesting “regimes,” that is, ways of being politically. And
these regimes are not like buildings, once constructed and then able to
stand on their own. Rather, they are always fluid and their existence is always
uncertain. Doing politics is like more like sailing on the seas than it is like
building on land.

This is, I
believe, what Latimer’s analysis both reveals and obscures. Making policy and
doing politics are two very different activities and, these days, the former,
proposing and making policy is used to obscure, to hide the latter, maintaining
a status quo that is no longer acceptable to most of the American people. As
several have pointed out, our politics of “failure” is a politics of smoke and
mirrors.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Below is a
link to an article entitled “Republicans are in Full Control of the Government
– But Losing Control of Their Party.” It is an interesting article but what
the article fails to take note of: This is what the mainstream Republicans want
because it means the status quo will continue and, if it continues, they
continue and, hopefully for them, continue to control the party.

Here is the key passage: “Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill
have described the dynamic between the White House and GOP lawmakers as a
“disconnect” between Republicans who are still finding it difficult to accept
that he is the leader of the party that they have long controlled.

“The
disconnect is between a president who was elected from outside the Washington
bubble and people in Congress who are of the Washington bubble,” Sen. David
Perdue (R-Ga.), who works closely with the White House. “I don’t think some
people in the Senate understand the mandate that Donald Trump’s election
represented.”

Whether
Trump had a mandate is questionable but he does have the presidency and this is
a threat to those mainstream Republicans who share little with Trump
politically and like him even less. So, what to do? Well, appear to be
incompetent, bogged down in intraparty fights, and little or nothing will
change. And because the most powerful Republicans want to preserve the status
quo, Trump’s attempts to move them will fail.

But what about the
country? I can hear it now: "But the country is getting screwed?" Of
course it is. But where's the news in that? That's been going on since at least
1980 and Reagan's election. I mean just because Bill Clinton didn't screw
Monica doesn't mean he didn't screw us!

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Those
called the “Anti-Federalists” were, as most know, those persons who opposed the
ratification of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787 to the thirteen
states. Among these persons were Patrick Henry in Virginia, Melancton Smith in
New York, and Mercy Warren in Pennsylvania. It is the purpose of this paper to
provide an overview of what the Anti-Federalists stood for and why they thought
the proposed Constitution ought not be ratified.

To begin at
the beginning and where most would agree, the AF were proponents of what has
been called “the small republic theory” of government. According to this
“theory,” perhaps most famously cast in its modern form by a Frenchman by the
name of Montesquieu, liberty could only be secured in small societies, i.e.,
geographically small societies. The reasons for this theory may be rather
easily stated in the following three propositions.

First, it
was thought that only in small societies would people voluntarily obey their
government. Second, it was thought that only in small societies could
governments be genuinely responsible to the people. And, third, it was thought
that only small societies could produce citizens, i.e., those kinds human
beings necessary for maintaining republican forms of government. It will useful
to consider each of these propositions to see what each meant or means.

First is
the thought that only in small societies would people voluntarily obey their
government. This may be illustrated rather easily by contrasting life in small
towns and life in big cities today. In small towns, a police force is often
almost unnecessary, whereas in a city like Boston a police force is absolutely
necessary or indispensable. Some small towns in northeast Connecticut, for
example, don’t even have a police force and rely pretty much on state troopers
for their law enforcement, such as it is. I grew up in a small town in New
Jersey and I must say that mothers were far more important in maintaining order
than the police force there.

Of course,
a city like Boston is inconceivable without a police force, and a rather large
and powerful police force at that. It is useful to consider what this means.
What we call “police forces” are in fact military institutions. Like the
military, the police wear uniforms, carry weapons, and are authorized to use
those weapons even if it means that someone might die. This is not to say that
there is no difference between the Boston police force and the U.S. Marines. It
is only to say that there are similarities that we often overlook.

Now, it is
important to note the implication of the Boston situation. Government in
Boston, maintaining law and order there, requires the presence of a military
force, whereas life in small towns does not. Hence, there is a “militarization”
that takes place in large cities, meaning not only a militarization
institutionally but also a militarization psychologically. It also means that
government in a city like Boston relies on force rather than consent to
maintain law and order, to maintain the peace. Everyone knows, moreover, that
militarization which leads to the use of force to maintain the peace and good
order of a society requires, inevitably, that personal liberties will be
compromised. There will be, necessarily and inevitably, less liberty in Boston
than in a small town. And, perhaps more importantly, force will be the glue
that holds the society together in large places whereas it is less necessary as
the social glue in small places. [1]

Insofar as
force predominates then it is all too easy for fear to become another aspect,
perhaps even the key ingredient, of whatever it is that binds a society
together. And, of course, it is a question of what happens to human beings who
are governed by means of fear. It is even possible to wonder whether such
humans would be capable of self rule as they would always have to be controlled
by others who make them aware of “the fearful” stuff. And it would be advisable
under these conditions to have a government that struck fear into the hearts
and souls of those it is governing. Such a government could hardly be called
“republican.”

Second, it
was thought that only in small societies could government be genuinely
responsible to the people. It is important to note at the outset that “genuine
responsibility” meant to the AF a government that adhered to popular opinion,
not a government that tried to mold popular opinion or lead popular opinion as
is so commonly said today. A genuinely responsible government was responsive to the people.

To ensure
such responsiveness, the AF would rely on certain institutional devices,
especially short terms in office and strict term limits. This would help to
ensure that the people representatives would not lose touch with the people, as
so often happens with what we call “professional politicians.” Under an AF
scheme there would be no professional politicians and, hence, little chance
that politicians would get “out of touch.” Of course, for this to make sense it
is necessary to see that the AF had a different conception of what governments
should do than we have today. That is, if governments are to undertake large
social projects that seek to “re-form” society, then professional politicians
would be advisable. However, if governments are not to undertake such social
projects, then professional politicians are not necessary. The AF were fond of
arguing that “no great talents “ were needed in politics but, again, to make
sense of this argument, it should be kept in mind that it entails a very
different understanding of the proper scope of government than the one we have
today or than the one the Federalists had in 1787.

But these
institutional devices were only part of the AF thought on maintaining a
genuinely responsible government. Also, they thought it necessary that those
who would be elected to office should be like the people they represent. That
is, the people representatives, together, should “re-present” the people in the
government. The government should look like, have a likeness with the people themselves. So, unlike today, when
Representatives and Senators are unlike the people they represent, in an AF
scheme government officials would reflect the people.

It is
useful to emphasize that such a scheme would require a very different mindset
than the one that predominates today. Today it is thought that what might be
called an “elite” is best suited to the task of governing and, hence, we elect
those who we think are “better” than we are, at least in a socio-economic sense.
For example, it is quite common to hear a person praised for taking a
government position that requires an economic sacrifice on their part, whereas
it is implied that the wealthy are better suited for government than the less
well off, the middle or lower class people.

For the AF
scheme to work, a middle class society is necessary and by a middle class
society I mean a society in which people aspire to be middle class and think
that those in the middle class are “better” than either the lower classes or
the upper classes.[2]
Hence, in such a society, the people would choose middle class people to
represent them. Only with such a mindset would those chosen to govern be like most
of those they represented.

Further, an
AF scheme would then require a middle class society as its base. Such a society
would not then aspire to the creation of great wealth, either in individuals or
for society itself. And it might be fair to say that such a society would not
aspire to greatness of any kind, cultural, economic, militarily, or
politically. As it might be put today, such a society would not aspire to
“super power” status. For illustrative purposes, I might say that a middle
class society would aspire not to greatness but to goodness. It would seek to be good, not great. It would not
undertake projects, either at home or abroad, that sought to achieve greatness.
To be flippant about it, such a society would not aspire to “No Child Left
Behind” but, rather, to supply all children with the nurturing needed to be
decent. Education would not be seen as a ladder to “success” or “fame,” but
rather an arena where children would be taught not competition but caring. Or
it would not declare “a war on drugs,” a war that sought the eradication of
mind-altering and illegal drugs. Rather, it would seek to build the kind of
society in which such drugs would seem superfluous or irrelevant to the kind of
life style most people aspired to.

Lastly, the
Anti-Federalists thought that it was only in small societies that the kind of
citizen could be developed who could support the demands of a republican
government and a republican society. Republican government demands that the governed
control the governors, which is only possible, as was intimated above, in
simple, close-knit societies with relatively simple, transparent governments. And
a republican society demands a kind of likeness among the people, the kind of
likeness that blurs the differences between the rich and the middle and lower
classes. This is why George Mason at the constitutional convention suggested
that the national government be empowered to pass “sumptuary laws,” that is,
laws that regulate such events as funerals or weddings in order to prevent the
few from making ostentatious displays of their wealth.

But there is
another aspect to republican citizenship as understood by the Anti-Federalists
which is perhaps best understood by contrasting it with the kind of citizenship
that was embraced by the progressives at the beginning of the 20th
century and which still carries a lot of weight today. That citizenship was to
be characterized by what might be called a “nationalistic fervor,” that is, an
intense nationalism that would create unity among the people. One might say
that the progressives sought to replace a “union” with a “nation.” In unions,
the parts retain their integrity while in nations, the parts are subsumed into or
consumed by the whole. In a nation, the parts become invisible or are
“disappeared.” In this view, citizens rally to the nation’s cause almost as one,
after being summoned by a “leader.” They are to “ask not what their country can
do for them but what they can do for their country.” Moreover, they pledge
their allegiance in schools everyday, while standing solemnly at attention while
listening to the national anthem. And those who won’t honor these rituals,
whether for religious reasons or not, are not considered citizens.

Needless to
say, there is little room for such a galvanizing citizenship in small or
localized republican communities. Localized communities don’t have flags that
are revered and they don’t have anthems, unless of course one exists to
celebrate the local sports’ team victories. Moreover, as the purpose of
government and society is to achieve good, not to achieve greatness, “heroic
citizenship,” like the kind of “heroic leadership” that summons it, is not only
unnecessary; it is irrelevant. That is, it would not make sense for a mayor or
even a governor of a state to say: “Ask not what your country can do for you
but ask what you can do for your country!” The kind of citizenship that exists in small
republican societies is one that is vigilant with regard to government and
especially with regard to people of great ambition. Both phenomena are
dangerous and when combined are doubly so.

No doubt,
Anti-Federalism, understood as I have presented it above, will seem more than a
little strange to us today. That is to be expected because taking Anti-Federalism
and the Anti-Federalists seriously requires that we lift a veil that has shrouded our
vision for a long time. The Constitution of 1787 was ratified and it has, we
have been taught to think, worked well for more than 200 years. There is no
doubt that the founders, that is, the Federalists who wrote, helped ratify, and
helped implement, did some good work. But, and especially these days, there can
or should be little doubt that while the founders did good work, their work is
far from perfect. To understand why, it is more than useful to consult the
Anti-Federalists, as they were the dissenters in 1787 and 1788. And not only
were they dissenters; they were cleared eyed dissenters and, as such, they saw
just how defective the new political order might become. The veil had not yet
descended, the Constitution was not yet revered as it came to be revered, and
they were still in touch with a way of thinking politically that no longer is
visible. It behooves us to pay them some attention.

[1]
Some will argue that in fact there is more liberty in large cities like Boston
than in small towns and, hence, that is why people like living in large cities.
In small towns, everyone knows everyone else’s business and, hence, there is
less liberty. While this seems persuasive, it rests I think on confusing
anonymity with liberty. Big city anonymity does offer more freedom than that
found in small towns. But it is not clear that overall people are freer in big
cities than small towns as is evident if one thinks of how children can live in
small towns. Also, the constraints felt by adults in big cities, such as where
they cannot go safely, are not insignificant and liberty must mean or include
the freedom to move about as one wishes.

[2]
“Better” did not mean for the AF innately better. It simply meant for the AF
that those in the middle class were, because of their circumstances, more
moderate, more “moral” than those in the other two classes. For example, those
in the middle class have to work for a living and, hence, have less time and,
by the way, less money to engage in activities that are, for want of a better
term, “unproductive.” For the AF, living as middle class was a “better’” way to
live than to live poorly or, and this is especially interesting, to live
richly.In a genuinely middle class
society, most would not want “to marry a millionaire” or to be
millionaires.

Having
raised the question, “What is Anti-Federalism,” it seems necessary to raise the
question above, “What is Federalism?” That is, what were the Federalists for?

Here we
enter a thicket from which we might never emerge if we were to try to figure
out and summarize the views that have been attributed to the Federalists. As
the victors in the debate over the ratification of the Constitution in 1788,
the Federalists have garnered much more attention than the Anti-Federalists, as
is always the case with winners and losers. Moreover, because they were the
victors, their cause was victorious as well and, hence, people use them to
support their various causes as they can provide a kind of imprimatur for these
causes.

So to avoid
this thicket, I will not be spending time reviewing the various interpretations
of the Federalists and their cause. Rather, I will move into what I think their
cause was, paying attention to points of intersection between them and the
Anti-Federalists.

If the
Anti-Federalists may be said to be partisans of “small republics,” the
Federalists may be said to be partisans of “large republics.” Or as James
Madison argued in Federalist #10,
they were proponents of “a large, commercial republic.” So it may first be
asked, What was the problem(s) with small republics and how was or were these
addressed by the creation of a large republic.?

Most
importantly, the problem with small republics may be called “the tyranny of the
majorities.” That is, it was thought that in small republics, majorities could
form rather easily and because in a republic the majority legitimately holds
power, then once formed these majorities would prove to be oppressive. One advantage
of a large republic, perhaps even the
advantage of such a place, is that it is more difficult for such majorities to
form. As James Madison wrote in Federalist
10, a “multiplicity of interests” necessarily spring up in large and complex
societies making it more difficult for “a permanent majority” to form. Emphasis
should be placed on the word “permanent” because, of course, for anything to
get done in a republic majorities would have to form. However, in a large,
complex, and economically developed society, these majorities would most likely
be temporary, coalescing in order to pass a particular piece of legislation, to
endorse a particular policy and then disappearing.

Moreover,
because these majorities were temporary, it was thought that there was a
likelihood that they would actually come to agree on something that was very
close to or resembled what might be called the “common good.” Of course, no
particular group was interested in the “common good” but because of the
negotiating that would be necessary to form working majorities, it was thought
that something resembling the “common good” would emerge from the political
arena. At the very least, the rights of minorities would not be compromised
given the absence of a permanent majority.[1]

However, it
must be said that there is more to the appeal of a large, commercial republic
than reducing the possibility of majority tyranny, an appeal reflected by the
character of the government created by the Constitution. A large, commercial
republic was also appealing because such a republic would be able to rival
monarchies in terms of greatness, in terms of what was called in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere “a great
empire.” To create such an empire, a powerful, complex, and central government
was needed. Simple government controlled by “simple” – read “middling” –
persons would no longer suffice. A government that merely reflected the middling majority would need to be replaced by a
government composed of representatives who represented a refinement of those of the middle class. Moreover, these types of
representatives should be permitted to govern for long periods, to be professional politicians for the same
reasons that these types were allowed to populate other professions, their superior talents. Unlike the
Anti-Federalists, the Federalists did not aspire to “sameness” or “likeness” in
their representatives.

And of
course such a republic must have a government that is composed of offices of
great powers and much prominence. For example, there might be an office fit for
the greatest man of the day, just as the presidency is often said to have been
created with George Washington in mind. If such an office then helped make its
occupant the greatest man of the day, the nation’s leading man accompanied by
“the First Lady,” that would be fine as well. After all, it is not possible to
have a government capable of doing great things without great offices and great
men to occupy them. The greater the office, the more it would appeal to those
men who are driven by, in Alexander Hamilton’s words, “the love of fame, the leading passion of the
noblest minds.” Men of noble minds want to do noble things and a government of
great offices is the only way to make such doings possible.

So whereas
the Anti-Federalists argued that “no great talents” were necessary in a
government, the Federalists did not. It is important though, to do justice to
both sides in this debate, to recognize that neither argument is persuasive
absent a consideration of the appropriate ends of government. If the wish is to
have a government do great things, to remake society in significant even basic
ways, then it is indispensable to have “great talents” in the government. It
takes “great talents” to do “great things.” On the other hand, if the wish is
to have a government that does not seek to do “great things,” that seeks to do,
say, “good things,” then it is not
necessary to have “great talents” in the government. In fact, as the
Anti-Federalists liked to point out, such men would be dangerous, as great men
with great ambitions always are.

So at
bottom then, the differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists,
the differences between what we call “small republics” and “large republics,”
come down to differences over the appropriate ends of government. And it might
even be said that these differences come down to differences over whether
governments – and of course human beings – should seek greatness, to do great things, or should seek goodness, to do good things. If the wish is to pursue greatness,
then a great government, composed of great offices filled with great human
beings, is absolutely essential. However, if the wish is to pursue goodness,
then a simple government, composed of simple offices filled with simple human beings,
is absolutely essential.

The
Federalist had, it has been said by the leading authority on the
Anti-Federalists, the more powerful argument.[2]
Such would seem to be the case. The appeal of greatness, of doing great things,
perhaps even as a recent president thought, of ridding the world of evil, is
about as seductive an appeal as is imaginable. To do great things, to do the
greatest thing, to create, would
appear to be almost god-like. To conserve,
on the other hand, as even Lincoln pointed out,[3]
pales by comparison. But while the argument for greatness is more powerful, we
may wonder if it is better. The more powerful arguments are such because they
appeal to our passions, while the better arguments, although weaker, appeal to
our reason. And so it is worth wondering whether, even though the
Anti-Federalists made the weaker argument, they did not also make the better
argument. They would not be the first example of human beings trying “to make
the weaker argument appear stronger.”

[1]
That this argument makes some sense, think of the areas where something very
much like a permanent majority exists in the United States, viz., race, and
then think the oppression of and what great effort it took to overcome the
oppression of the minority race.